Legitime target. (Polish members especially wanted to answer

[Marmot1]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

[perdurabo]

Q1: for rebels like our AK in WW2 Yes but in iraq there isnt any underground army only bunch of terrorist
Q2: Its land mine anti personel made in home so according to new threatyy no but noone obey laws aginst antipersonel mines
Q3: no negotiations with murders only with local ppls help them rebuild country and kill all terrorist scum

[Argyll]

Here's the deal Marmot,and no offence to anyone else here,I'll only allow Polish answers in this topic.

2ndly The PLO'Hamas,and Hezbollah are not insurgents mate,they are Terrorist Orginisations.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

I support out troops, but I think that yes, they are. Our soldiers are occupying enemy territory, and de facto we're at war.


Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

If landmine is 'legal', than IED is legal too.


Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Yes, negotiation is always better than military actions with casualties on both sides, generating anger and hate. Negotiating, you may win something without use of military force.

[Loco]

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)
In fact there was negotiations with insurgents when they still weren´t insurgents, and polish troops know it. The staff of the polish leaded division in Irak talked directly or through negotiators with different shii leaders in the area, included Al Sadr till the beginning of April, and so the region was relatively peaceful and free of terrorists compared with the rest of Iraq. There was an order of american general Ricardo Sánchez to the polish leaded division of getting the head of Al Sadr, and the polish general and the second on staff, an spanish general, said NO, because they said their soldiers weren´t in Iraq for doing the war nor for beginning a war, not to mention they hadn´t offensive resources just because they were sent to Iraq for mantaining the peace. The rest till now is recent history. And excuse me because I´m not polish, but in some way I´m concerned as spanish.

[mack pl]

Q1: we cannot be legitime target, cos in iraq dont fight against us iraqi army, but terrorists(many foreigners too)
Q2: untill land mines are legal weapon(like in Poland) this IED are legal too
Q3: we shouldnt talk with extremists like Al-Sadr.We should talk with those iraqis who are powerfull, but not ****in crazy extremists(Al-sistani for example)

[fdt]

And excuse me because I´m not polish, but in some way I´m concerned as spanish.You are welcome.

[volfram]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.

[mack pl]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.Agree with that.Like i said in my first post,in iraq fight against us many foreign terrorists.

[Marmot1]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.Agree with that.Like i said in my first post,in iraq fight against us many foreign terrorists.

This is why I asked about insurgents not terrorist.

[mack pl]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.Agree with that.Like i said in my first post,in iraq fight against us many foreign terrorists.

This is why I asked about insurgents not terrorist.ok mate, but how to recognize them? abdul in red T-shirt is insurgent, but mohamed in orange baseball cap with rpg7 is terrorist from Syria?Well, its impossible,yeah?

[fdt]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

A1: Legitimate target... hmm what does it mean for these guys ("insurgents")? For them legitimate target is:

a) Somehow no matter ho far connected to the US - white skin is enough and
b) It is in reach and vulnerable (as in ambush) or cannot defend itself

A2: What law do those guys obey? Do they obey any centralized or unified command?... or it's just every group for itself. One place is run by Jakubek's Gang another by Janosik's Gang - all competing who is braver and who killed more infidels...

A3: Of course there should be negotiations and power share with Iraqis from the beginning (at least at Kurdish and Shia populated territories). at the beginning there should be an intensive research for most promising (strongest) faction that will be capable to keep situation calm. Law and order applied with locally utilized (for ages) means. These guys should be encouraged to take over and keep (their) law and order. After they would get a grip on situation... there would be (most likely) one man to talk with... and then the unfinished opportunities to "buy" that man for the US puropses would open...

This hasn't been done... so our soldiers are "legitimate" targets on daily basis now, whether they want it or not. :|

[perdurabo]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.Agree with that.Like i said in my first post,in iraq fight against us many foreign terrorists.

This is why I asked about insurgents not terrorist.ok mate, but how to recognize them? abdul in red T-shirt is insurgent, but mohamed in orange baseball cap with rpg7 is terrorist from Syria?Well, its impossible,yeah?
kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.

[volfram]

They are legitimate targets for Iraqus but not for foreign mercenaries.Agree with that.Like i said in my first post,in iraq fight against us many foreign terrorists.

This is why I asked about insurgents not terrorist.ok mate, but how to recognize them? abdul in red T-shirt is insurgent, but mohamed in orange baseball cap with rpg7 is terrorist from Syria?Well, its impossible,yeah?
kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.
Mowisz tak by przypodobac sie amerykanom.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.

A oni będą za to naszym ścinać głowy... i mamy błędne koło

Tylko że ich jest więcej ;)

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.
Mowisz tak by przypodobac sie amerykanom.

rofl

[Argyll]

there is a reason for this topic my Polish friends it stems from comments made by Marmon 1and Arweiner here,and I asked how he felt if this were about Poles in Iraq,whether he thought they were legitamate targets based on the Incident in the topic

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14661&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[mack pl]

kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.

A oni będą za to naszym ścinać głowy... i mamy błędne koło

Tylko że ich jest więcej ;)Nie no kurwa, zawsze możemy zajebac amerykanom bombe atomowa i wyrównać bilans ludnościowy.....Ok, in english boys ;) Argyll will kill us for polish ;)

[Maverick77]

A) why wouldnt they be

B) Trying to make rules in war is the dumbest thing ever so that shouldnt even be a question

C)No

[perdurabo]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'

[mack pl]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'You trying compare "Legion condor" to "Multinational division South-Central"?.... :lol:

[fdt]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'Hmmm. I'll better assume that You wanted to write smth of different meaning than You did... but You lacked a bit of english... ;)

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

kill them all let allach sort them out. proste i skuteczne. wieszać i rozstrzeliwać tak długo aż się poddadzą.

A oni będą za to naszym ścinać głowy... i mamy błędne koło

Tylko że ich jest więcej ;)Nie no kurwa, zawsze możemy zajebac amerykanom bombe atomowa i wyrównać bilans ludnościowy.....Ok, in english boys ;) Argyll will kill us for polish ;)

Nuke'em :D

"Jak rozpętałem III wojnę światową" :D :D :D

[mack pl]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'Hmmm. I'll better assume that You wanted to write smth of different meaning than You did... but You lacked a bit of english... ;)well, i think he mean Spain war for nazis was some kind of training("poligon doświadczalny") :| @Brzeczyszczykiewicz- rofl

[perdurabo]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'Hmmm. I'll better assume that You wanted to write smth of different meaning than You did... but You lacked a bit of english... ;)well, i think he mean Spain war for nazis was some kind of training("poligon doświadczalny") :| @Brzeczyszczykiewicz- rofl
exacly training ground better than any else, we can train our troops gather battle knowledge, this is what i ment.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

we should learn on this war like nazis learned in spain in 30'

Today: Camp Babilon, al-Hillah,
tommorow:
WORLD DOMINATION

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Marmot1]

1. PLEASE use only english... of course I can understand sentence or two in polish but, not conversation since not many ppl know polish and this is international forum. (and not off topic section)

2.As for comparition to Legion Condor I hope you meant getting experience. Actually we learned a lot in Iraq and probably it is our only gain from sending troops there... Hopefully no one waste this experience in polish central command.

[Denat]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

1. PLEASE use only english... of course I can understand sentence or two in polish but, not conversation since not many ppl know polish and this is international forum. (and not off topic section)

Sorry for that...


2.As for comparition to Legion Condor I hope you meant getting experience. Actually we learned a lot in Iraq and probably it is our only gain from sending troops there... Hopefully no one waste this experience in polish central command.

It's sad, but I can bet that all Iraqi experiences will be wasted. Our fat, communust-trained generals in General Staff are just jealous that someone have some battle-experience, someone is better than them. They just send experienced soldiers behind the desks.

BTW. Polish 3rd rotation, uder the command of Gen. A. Ekiert (chief of reconnesaince, General Staff :cantbeli: ) will have BMP-1s, and maybe 4 Mi-24 helicopters.

[fdt]

Gentlemen... pls note that in english nazi does not have the same meaning as in Russian or in some cases in Polish. In Spain it were German and Italian (not nazi) armies who gathered experiences.

For Russians Italian Army and German Army were - "fascist armies". Italian State and German State were both "fascist" too.

For Yanks and Britons Italian Army was "Italian Army" so was German Army a "German Army". Italian State was "fascist" and German State was "nazi".

Look at some english definitions:


NAZI:

Noun 1. Nazi - a German member of Adolf Hitler's political party
German Nazi
Brownshirt - a member of the Nazi SA which wore brown uniforms
fascist - an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
storm trooper - a member of the Nazi SA
Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann, Karl Adolf Eichmann - Austrian who became the Nazi official who administered the concentration camps where millions of Jews were murdered during World War II (1906-1962)
Goebbels, Joseph Goebbels, Paul Joseph Goebbels - German propaganda minister in Nazi Germany who persecuted the Jews (1897-1945)
Goering, Goring, Hermann Goering, Hermann Goring, Hermann Wilhelm Goring - German politician in Nazi Germany who founded the Gestapo and mobilized Germany for war (1893-1946)
Rudolf Hess, Walther Richard Rudolf Hess, Hess - Nazi leader who in 1941 flew to Scotland in an apparent attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain but was imprisoned for life (1894-1987)
Heinrich Himmler, Himmler - German Nazi who was chief of the SS and the Gestapo and who oversaw the genocide of six million Jews (1900-1945)
Adolf Hitler, Der Fuhrer, Hitler - German Nazi dictator during World War II (1889-1945)
Adj. 1. Nazi - relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; "the total Nazi crime"; "the Nazi interpretation of history"
2. Nazi - relating to a form of socialism; "the national socialist party came to power in 1933"
national socialist


FASCIST

Noun 1. fascist - an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
Blackshirt - a member of the Italian fascist party before World War II
German Nazi, Nazi - a German member of Adolf Hitler's political party
right-winger, rightist - a member of a right wing political party
Adj. 1. fascist - relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda"

as you may see nazi and fascist in English are not synonymous (or almost synonymous) as in Polish or Russian, so use it more carefully or face a blow from our older brothers of the Abraham's house.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

Yeah man, if you want to see 50 Polish soldiers killed every day in Iraqi national uprising, then let's do that.

Is hanging a dead body obeing a laws of war?

Denat, go back to your graveyard and STFU :bash:

[volfram]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

[Aaargh, I couldn't resist myself...]

It sounds familiar... mass executions.... some genocides... Waffen SS... Einsatzgruppen... Irakische Banditen...

Do you have any nazi connections?

[Denat]

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

Yeah man, if you want to see 50 Polish soldiers killed every day in Iraqi national uprising, then let's do that.

Is hanging a dead body obeing a laws of war?

Denat, go back to your graveyard and STFU :bash:

There is only one rule of war - THE STRONGER ONE SURVIVES. You like it or not, but the wars were won be the power not by the rules. Such liberal **** as the rules of war doesn't help you in that. The only weapon against fanatical terrorists is fanatical cruelty against them. And one more thing - THE WINNER HAS ALWAYS RIGHT. THE WINNERS ARE NOT TO BE JUDGED.
During the Algerian War french gen.Massu destroyed the algerian resistance (FLN) in Alger city only thanks to critical information gathered through interrogations with use of tortures. Sad but true. Today Israel has very good methods to deal with terrorists, and probably the longest experience in continous counter-terror warfare. You are a terrorist, you will be killed and your house will be destroyed and bulldozed. As easy as that.

Denat, go back to your graveyard and STFU :bash:
O co ci KURWA chodzi?

[volfram]

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

Yeah man, if you want to see 50 Polish soldiers killed every day in Iraqi national uprising, then let's do that.
He mean you are Denat.

Is hanging a dead body obeing a laws of war?

Denat, go back to your graveyard and STFU :bash:

There is only one rule of war - THE STRONGER ONE SURVIVES. You like it or not, but the wars were won be the power not by the rules. Such liberal **** as the rules of war doesn't help you in that. The only weapon against fanatical terrorists is fanatical cruelty against them. And one more thing - THE WINNER HAS ALWAYS RIGHT. THE WINNERS ARE NOT TO BE JUDGED.
During the Algerian War french gen.Massu destroyed the algerian resistance (FLN) in Alger city only thanks to critical information gathered through interrogations with use of tortures. Sad but true. Today Israel has very good methods to deal with terrorists, and probably the longest experience in continous counter-terror warfare. You are a terrorist, you will be killed and your house will be destroyed and bulldozed. As easy as that.

Denat, go back to your graveyard and STFU :bash:
O co ci KURWA chodzi?

[mack pl]

Kurwa chłopaki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: ....calm down everybody,ok?...BTW everyone here could make own opinion.Denat have his opinion,and you Brzdękupęku(j.k) have your opinion.BTW you shouldnt ask him, does he have any nazi connection.Christ,he is Pole,not German....whatever....Pozdro :|...Ohh,i dont agree with you Denat.If we go this way (Hitler, Massu) we should understand this terrorists, who cut heads of americans :|

[Denat]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?

[mack pl]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. According to the Genova Convention legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?Zołnierze AK byli częścią armii polskiej...dla tego po powstaniu zostali wzięci do niewoli a nie rozwaleni pod ścianą...

[Denat]

Kurwa chłopaki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: ....calm down everybody,ok?...BTW everyone here could make own opinion.Denat have his opinion,and you Brzdękupęku(j.k) have your opinion.BTW you shouldnt ask him, does he have any nazi connection.Christ,he is Pole,not German....whatever....Pozdro :|...Ohh,i dont agree with you Denat.If we go this way (Hitler, Massu) we should understand this terrorists, who cut heads of americans :|
Thanks Mack. You seem to be one of a few normal persons here.
BTW I strongly believe that there is nothing wrong in killing the terrorists in every possible way if this way is efficient. Try to understand my point of view - the terrorists are crazy fanatics so cruelty is the only weapon against them.

[mack pl]

Kurwa chłopaki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bash: ....calm down everybody,ok?...BTW everyone here could make own opinion.Denat have his opinion,and you Brzdękupęku(j.k) have your opinion.BTW you shouldnt ask him, does he have any nazi connection.Christ,he is Pole,not German....whatever....Pozdro :|...Ohh,i dont agree with you Denat.If we go this way (Hitler, Massu) we should understand this terrorists, who cut heads of americans :|
Thanks Mack. You seem to be one of a few normal persons here.Pare osób by sie z Tobą nie zgodziło ;) rofl rofl

[Denat]

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

[Aaargh, I couldn't resist myself...]

It sounds familiar... mass executions.... some genocides... Waffen SS... Einsatzgruppen... Irakische Banditen...

Do you have any nazi connections?

How dare you to talk to your fellow countrymen in this way? Many people from my family belonged to NSZ & AK and they were fighting against the nazis during the II WW. How dare you to talk to me in this way?

[mack pl]

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.

[Aaargh, I couldn't resist myself...]

It sounds familiar... mass executions.... some genocides... Waffen SS... Einsatzgruppen... Irakische Banditen...

Do you have any nazi connections?

How dare you to talk to your fellow countrymen in this way? Many people from my family belonged to NSZ & AK and they were fighting against the nazis during the II WW. How dare you to talk to me in this way?Please stop! We start to be like typical Poles here.we have bilions different opinions, but only 60 milions Poles are on this ****in planet :cantbeli: Hey everybody :hug: Pozdro :) .

[Piotrek]

1. Well thats the problem - ofcourse I'm supporting our troops in Iraq but I also think that Iraqis who believe that coalition forces are occupiers and who are not happy with foreign presence in theirs country have right to fight with coalition forces...from other hand I believe that our forces are helping to rebulid Iraq so I'm realy pissed with those attacs on our troops...but mayby from other perspective it isnt so obvious - its theirs country and probably they have different point of view on our presence there.

2. Yes

3. Yes ther should by talks with clans leaders and people who have authorityamong others.

[Marmot1]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them but thanx for explanation.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1 ??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody had large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...

[mack pl]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody has large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...nazis-black t-shirts, fasists white t-shirts ;) BTW Denat have his opinion, and we should respect it.Well,of course I dont agree with him and I hope he isnt general Ekiert undercover ,and we will not see polish Einsatzgruppen in iraq ;) :lol:

[Marmot1]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody has large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...nazis-black t-shirts, fasists white t-shirts ;) BTW Denat have his opinion, and we should respect it.Well,of course I dont agree with him and I hope he isnt general Ekiert undercover ,and we will not see polish Einsatzgruppen in iraq ;) :lol:

Wrong :bash: :cantbeli:

Nazis brown shirts
Fasists black shirts.

;)

[mack pl]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody has large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...nazis-black t-shirts, fasists white t-shirts ;) BTW Denat have his opinion, and we should respect it.Well,of course I dont agree with him and I hope he isnt general Ekiert undercover ,and we will not see polish Einsatzgruppen in iraq ;) :lol:

Wrong :bash: :cantbeli:

Nazis brown shirts
Fasists black shirts.

;)Ohh, well ,Im almost blind so whatever....

[volfram]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

[Denat]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them but thanx for explanation.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1 ??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody had large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...
I'm not (S)permski's cousin. I have my own methods ;)

[mack pl]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them but thanx for explanation.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1 ??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody had large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...
I'm not (S)permski's cousin. I have my own methods ;)Now we all understand your nickname-Denat ;) ..bloody methods..you butcher... ;) :lol:

[Denat]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

No my friend, that just means that we don't have to deal with them as with legal resistance ;) and because of that no one could blame us if we don't treat them according to the rules of war.

[Denat]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them but thanx for explanation.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1 ??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody had large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...
I'm not (S)permski's cousin. I have my own methods ;)Now we all understand your nickname-Denat ;) ..bloody methods..you butcher... ;) :lol:
Oh Jeez ! You have unmasked me right now man ;)

[mack pl]

1 Pole = 1 opinion
2 Poles =... ...3 diferent opinions rofl

fdt As for Nazi & Fasist I recognize them but thanx for explanation.

Someone said noone obey rules of war??? so why british stoped using dum-dum ammo for pistiols in WW1 ??? becouse germans stoped also...

Why noone used poisionous gases during WW2? I don't know but everybody had large quantities...

Denat if you are not a nazi ;) so maybe you are permski cousin :lol: ??? since methods described by you are simmilar to those used in chechenya and... you know what the outcome is over there... You have seen it in pics of the day not so long ago...
I'm not (S)permski's cousin. I have my own methods ;)Now we all understand your nickname-Denat ;) ..bloody methods..you butcher... ;) :lol:
Oh Jeez ! You have unmasked me right now man ;)Yeah, Im second Sherlock Holmes :roll: :lol:

[Marmot1]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

No my friend, that just means that we don't have to deal with them as with legal resistance ;) and because of that no one could blame us if we don't treat them according to the rules of war.

1 Press would bleame us and that is worse than Lepper.
2. No insurgents do not have to wear identyfication mark, or to make it more clear it is nor necesary...

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

So as you se they only have to wear guns openly and have some sort of identificatiom marks (look at al-Sadr supporters most of them wear some kind of ID usually with al-Sadr photo.

Also they must have chain of command not one united command that means even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader....

[mack pl]

Dont forget about t-shirts with big al-Sadr photo on chest ;) :lol:

[Denat]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

No my friend, that just means that we don't have to deal with them as with legal resistance ;) and because of that no one could blame us if we don't treat them according to the rules of war.

1 Press would bleame us and that is worse than Lepper.
2. No insurgents do not have to wear identyfication mark, or to make it more clear it is nor necesary...

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

So as you se they only have to wear guns openly and have some sort of identificatiom marks (look at al-Sadr supporters most of them wear some kind of ID usually with al-Sadr photo.

Also they must have chain of command not one united command that means even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader....

Marmot, you have given here the deffinition of insurgents which is favorising almost everyone carrying weapons openly. That means even robbers and assasins could be recognized as freedom-fighters. In accordance to your deffinition those savages who killed 4 american contractors and than humiliated their bodies and celebrated the event with uncoordinated dance were insurgents and as such should be granted rights as combatants.
The U.S. didn't recognized the taliban fighters as insurgents, neither didn't the Brits ever recognized the IRA or the Spaniards the ETA.

[Pille1234]

The iraqis didn't sign the geneva convention, besides this, following your interpretation the french or polish resistance in WW2 were terrorists without the right to fight the occupier. They didn't wear some kind of uniform and they were hiding behind civilians, too. From todays point of view they are called heroes, if hitler had won the war they were Banditen or terrorists. The name simply depends on the party you ask.
I'm not happy about coalition death, but the iraqis have every right to fight coalition soldiers, no matter if they are rebuilding schools or torturing prisoners. All the 'fighting terror and the Evil' talk is onesided war propaganda, nothing more.
There are probably terrorists fighting along the insurgents, but this doesn't make resistance fighters illegitimate.

[Denat]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !
And than I woke up ! Sweet Lord what should I do? I'm Your obedient servant ! Come on guys we have to form the Army of God. Come on where are you? ;)

[mack pl]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !
And than I woke up ! Sweet Lord what should I do? I'm Your obedient servant ! Come on guys we have to form the Army of God. Come on where are you? ;)Maybe you dont know but Im infidel too(well mamrot and hermannek called me like that).....BTW rofl

[volfram]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

No my friend, that just means that we don't have to deal with them as with legal resistance ;) and because of that no one could blame us if we don't treat them according to the rules of war.

1 Press would bleame us and that is worse than Lepper.
2. No insurgents do not have to wear identyfication mark, or to make it more clear it is nor necesary...

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

So as you se they only have to wear guns openly and have some sort of identificatiom marks (look at al-Sadr supporters most of them wear some kind of ID usually with al-Sadr photo.

Also they must have chain of command not one united command that means even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader....

Marmot, you have given here the deffinition of insurgents which is favorising almost everyone carrying weapons openly. That means even robbers and assasins could be recognized as freedom-fighters. In accordance to your deffinition those savages who killed 4 american contractors and than humiliated their bodies and celebrated the event with uncoordinated dance were insurgents and as such should be granted rights as combatants.
The U.S. didn't recognized the taliban fighters as insurgents, neither didn't the Brits ever recognized the IRA or the Spaniards the ETA.
Your conclusion to what marmot said is strange.

[Denat]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !
And than I woke up ! Sweet Lord what should I do? I'm Your obedient servant ! Come on guys we have to form the Army of God. Come on where are you? ;)Maybe you dont know but Im infidel too(well mamrot and hermannek called me like that).....BTW rofl

Oh I know but I haven't said which God it was, have I ?
Oh, wait a moment he is calling again......
The Lord said:
No problem my obedient son Denat, we are desperatly lacking people, we are just looking for a few good man. They can even be infidels, recruit this Mack, he is a good boy, misguided a little but we will show him the right direction.
So you see, there are no formal problems, just sign it down right here boy.....here you see it's so easy ;)

[Denat]

Your conclusion to what marmot said is strange.
You know I'm a strange man. I enjoy wearing black clothes and listening to death heavy metal music. And that's because I had a serious accident in my youth. Now you understand my problems, right ?
And talking seriously I'm looking forward to hear your arguments instead of saying that my opinion is strange. What's your point?

[Marmot1]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Ad.Q1: NO; In Iraq there are no insurgents who obey laws of war, only terrorists of many origins i.e. ex-Saddam regime loyalists, some fanatical ****ees, foreign terrorists etc.

Ad.Q2: Wheather legal or not it kills, so what's the difference. No war is realy ruled by the rules.

Ad.Q3: NO; Anyone who states resistance against our soldiers should be killed and his body hanged in public, so everyone could see what happens to the terrorists.
If they attack military targets they obey rules of war so they are not terrorist,no matter if they are Saddam loyalist or fanatical ****ees.

They aren't obeying the rules of war and they couldn't be recognized as legal resistance force according to the rules of war. Genova Convention states that legal resistance or insurgents should have some identification marks, one legal command etc. Do they (Iraqis) have the above said?
Po co żołnierze AK w Powstaniu Warszawskim nosili biało-czerwone opaski i wykonywali rozkazy swojego oficjalnie uznanego dowódcy gen.Bora?
Nobody in a world obey genova convention in 100%.Is that mean everybody are terrorists?

No my friend, that just means that we don't have to deal with them as with legal resistance ;) and because of that no one could blame us if we don't treat them according to the rules of war.

1 Press would bleame us and that is worse than Lepper.
2. No insurgents do not have to wear identyfication mark, or to make it more clear it is nor necesary...

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

So as you se they only have to wear guns openly and have some sort of identificatiom marks (look at al-Sadr supporters most of them wear some kind of ID usually with al-Sadr photo.

Also they must have chain of command not one united command that means even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader....

Marmot, you have given here the deffinition of insurgents which is favorising almost everyone carrying weapons openly. That means even robbers and assasins could be recognized as freedom-fighters. In accordance to your deffinition those savages who killed 4 american contractors and than humiliated their bodies and celebrated the event with uncoordinated dance were insurgents and as such should be granted rights as combatants.
The U.S. didn't recognized the taliban fighters as insurgents, neither didn't the Brits ever recognized the IRA or the Spaniards the ETA.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)


Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

No not everybody with AK is insurgent, as long as he observe laws of war he is considered insurgent. If not then he can be even executed acording to geneva.


An occupying power may sentence civilians to death if they are guilty of serious acts of sabotage — but only if these offenses were punishable by death by local laws before the occupation began. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

IRA and ETA several times targeted civilians but as you see now even with IRA peace talks can bring some fruits...

[mack pl]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !
And than I woke up ! Sweet Lord what should I do? I'm Your obedient servant ! Come on guys we have to form the Army of God. Come on where are you? ;)Maybe you dont know but Im infidel too(well mamrot and hermannek called me like that).....BTW rofl

Oh I know but I haven't said which God it was, have I ?
Oh, wait a moment he is calling again......
The Lord said:
No problem my obedient son Denat, we are desperatly lacking people, we are just looking for a few good man. They can even be infidels, recruit this Mack, he is a good boy, misguided a little but we will show him the right direction.
So you see, there are no formal problems, just sign it down right here boy.....here you see it's so easy ;)Nah, If I ever join any army,it will be Polish Army bro ;) :lol:

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

OK, I calmed down, took a few deep breaths, now let's start some essential discussion. No personal insults from this moment

Denat- sorry for my words.


The only weapon against fanatical terrorists is fanatical cruelty against them.

What are Iraqi reactions about Abu Ghraib prison tortures? Is Iraqi resistance weaking? Cruelty and brutal methods only strengthen the resistance


During the Algerian War french gen.Massu destroyed the algerian resistance (FLN) in Alger city only thanks to critical information gathered through interrogations with use of tortures. Sad but true.

But who won the Algierian war?


Today Israel has very good methods to deal with terrorists, and probably the longest experience in continous counter-terror warfare. You are a terrorist, you will be killed and your house will be destroyed and bulldozed. As easy as that.

But the short period of peace between Israel and Palestine was won by negitiations. Now, when israeli army occupies Palestinian territories and kills Palestinian leaders, terrorist organizations like Hamas become only more popular and more powerful in Palestinian society.

In II ww., Algieria, (French)Vietnam, (US) Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chcechnya brutal methods were common. But the army which use them always lost.

It's easy to send some tanks, artillery etc. and kill 100 Iraqi insurgents. But they have families and friends, who will think only about revenge. And from that moment we have 500 angry Iraqi insurgents. We kill'em, and have 2500, 'cause they have families too. And so on.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !

F**k!

Am I on the infidels list? ;)

[mack pl]

And the Lord said:

even three of them can form guerilla force if one of them is leader second vice leader and third vice vice leader...
And than the Lord said:

Denat, my son go teach my words to the people
And than said God the Almighty:

Form my army. I give you the commission as a Leader, Marmot will be your right hand aka.vice leader and Mack will be your second ;) right hand aka.vice vice leader. Go and fight the infidels in My name !

F**k!

Am I on the infidels list? ;)Yeah man,you are one of infidels, like me ;) Mamrot,Denat and Hermannek have list of infidels(but they never won with us).. ;) :lol: ...BTW now you talking like adult guy,no insults etc....

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

Yeah man,you are one of infidels, like me ;) Mamrot,Denat and Hermannek have list of infidels(but they never won with us).. ;) :lol: ...BTW now you talking like adult guy,no insults etc....

Yeah, it's better to culturally show your opinions, than call everyone a nazi :D

but...

Infidels rule :D
Now I'll change my location to "infidelland" :D

[Argyll]

Has this topic served it's purpose Guys?

Most seem in agreement then that the Polish troops are legitimate targets for being attacked,the definition of whom the attackers are,is the problem,as to whether the attackers are insurgents(of dubious Nationality)or Terrorists.?

So am I to take it then when a car bomb driven by an isurgent detonates and kills Polish troops ,there will be no outcries from you all?

The Poles are doing a great job in Iraq,and so far they are standing firm with the Coalition,and I salute them for their resolve in hard times in the past,and hard times ahead.

I shall lock this topic then delete it in a few hours time,not because of any wrong doing,it has served it's prpose and thanks to Marmot for having the balls to post what I asked him to do. ;)

[mack pl]

Yeah man,you are one of infidels, like me ;) Mamrot,Denat and Hermannek have list of infidels(but they never won with us).. ;) :lol: ...BTW now you talking like adult guy,no insults etc....

Yeah, it's better to culturally show your opinions, than call everyone a nazi :D

but...

Infidels rule :D
Now I'll change my location to "infidelland" :D :lol:

[mack pl]

Has this topic served it's purpose Guys?

Most seem in agreement then that the Polish troops are legitimate targets for being attacked,the definition of whom the attackers are,is the problem,as to whether the attackers are insurgents(of dubious Nationality)or Terrorists.?

So am I to take it then when a car bomb driven by an isurgent detonates and kills Polish troops ,there will be no outcries from you all?

The Poles are doing a great job in Iraq,and so far they are standing firm with the Coalition,and I salute them for their resolve in hard times in the past,and hard times ahead.

I shall lock this topic then delete it in a few hours time,not because of any wrong doing,it has served it's prpose and thanks to Marmot for having the balls to post what I asked him to do. ;)Not all of us thinks ours troops are legitime targets(check my post on page1)...Regards Argyll :)

[lekomin]

I shall lock this topic then delete it in a few hours time,not because of any wrong doing,it has served it's prpose and thanks to Marmot for having the balls to post what I asked him to do. ;)
PSYOPS? :lol:
take care.
lekomin inc

[Tane Angle]

Seems like some people, through no fault of their own, are under the impression that these are new tactics. They're not really though. It's all been done before. The VC in Saigon, most of the groups in Beirut, in various African countries, in Bogota and other cities in Colombia, in other Middle Eastern countries, in Asia proper, throughout Europe, especially by ETA and groups involved with Northern Ireland. Even 1920s Chicago had tactics like the ones in Iraq, some perhaps even worse.

The tactics are nearly a century old. Hate to say it, but maybe this is how everyone but the American(and Western overall) public understands war to be. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[volfram]

Has this topic served it's purpose Guys?

Most seem in agreement then that the Polish troops are legitimate targets for being attacked,the definition of whom the attackers are,is the problem,as to whether the attackers are insurgents(of dubious Nationality)or Terrorists.?

So am I to take it then when a car bomb driven by an isurgent detonates and kills Polish troops ,there will be no outcries from you all?

The Poles are doing a great job in Iraq,and so far they are standing firm with the Coalition,and I salute them for their resolve in hard times in the past,and hard times ahead.

I shall lock this topic then delete it in a few hours time,not because of any wrong doing,it has served it's prpose and thanks to Marmot for having the balls to post what I asked him to do. ;)
We did not say that we will no cry over death of our soldiers.We hate our enemies but it doesnt mean that they become authomaticly terrorists when they attack us.

[mack pl]

Has this topic served it's purpose Guys?

Most seem in agreement then that the Polish troops are legitimate targets for being attacked,the definition of whom the attackers are,is the problem,as to whether the attackers are insurgents(of dubious Nationality)or Terrorists.?

So am I to take it then when a car bomb driven by an isurgent detonates and kills Polish troops ,there will be no outcries from you all?

The Poles are doing a great job in Iraq,and so far they are standing firm with the Coalition,and I salute them for their resolve in hard times in the past,and hard times ahead.

I shall lock this topic then delete it in a few hours time,not because of any wrong doing,it has served it's prpose and thanks to Marmot for having the balls to post what I asked him to do. ;)
We did not say that we will no cry over death of our soldiers.We hate our enemies but it doesnt mean that they become authomaticly terrorists when they attack us.I agree with that.BTW its not important who killing ours soldiers, we always are pised off.Regards.

[Argyll]

Yes this is what I tought,it matters not how they die,or by whom,they are still citizens of Poland.

Ok thanks a lot Gentlemen for keeping the topic flame free,a lot of interesting comments.


OK guys...........a few PM's have come in..........topic stays,and remains open.

dziekuje all for participating......... ;)

[Loco]

This topic is worth of 100 pages more, but I´ve my conclusions clear since many years ago. If anyone(to not discuss if he´s a terrorist, insurgent, resistant or whatever) deliverately blows up a civil autobus full of civilians going to work then he´s a terrorist, and all the weight of the law must fall over him. If anyone blows up an armoured car driven by soldiers in a conflictive zone, this is a war action, wether if the one who did it wear an uniforme or not. If the bomber is caught, he must sent to the court and judged with the actual laws, but of course he must be respected, he´s as combatant as the soldiers he killed. If the dead soldiers are my fellows, I´ll cry them, but this doesn´t change the facts.
In the 80s, in Spain was designed member of Government Jorge Semprun. He´s a writer who developed his career as novelist and screen writer mostly in France, but before that he was many years member of spanish communist party, in the hard years, and he served as secret agent in Spain under Franco´s regime, he left PC in the early 60s because he evolutionated and he didn´t share the soviet points of view, he´s just a democrat. But far before that, J.Semprun had to fly away of Spain at the end of civil war being a teenager, with his family. When germans invaded France, Semprum, yet a communist, joined the resistance, and one day he shooted in the back a german soldier killing him in Paris, he was caught and sent to Buchenwald, where he survived after all. As I see, what Semprun did was a terrorist action, killing a man, even being an enemy, far of the front, when he was without defense, but at the same time I think he contributed to war doing so to erase the confidence of wehrmacht in the relative safe France. What´s your opinion?
In 1808 Napoleon dealed a treacherous treaty with spanish kings, so the spanish king resigned and the brother of Napoleon, Joseph, was named king of Spain. The treaty was considered treacherous by spanish people, but since the point of view of international legality it wasn´t illegal. Spanish people sublevated and they fought the french troops, that were in Spain since a year before, with naked hands and with all the weapons and resources they had, and I say all resources, included terror, all you can imagine was done by spanish by then: cutting ears, cutting bodies, etc, still the same was done by frenchs, but the frenchs were the "legal authority" so to say, so they were the good guys and out of suspicion. Many spanish civilians were caught prisioners and tortured, fusilated, or massacred and robbed, and many of them were innocents or they were loyal fighters caught prisioners in the fights. Of course the rebels spanish attacked everybody serving in the french army, that in fact was and allied army, beginning with the hated mameluks riders the first day and finishing with the polish that nobody knew what were doing in Spain. Marshal Murat tried to liquidate the sublevation of those called fannatics and thieves spanish but what it looked a matter of few days became a war of 5 years. I don´t pretend to say that Irak situation is the same that Spain 200 years ago, but just that I can´t evite seeing many common points, the same with many situations of spanish civil war or the IIWW or many other conflicts of the XX century.
My conclusions:
1.If I´m losting the battle and my army was defeated, I´ll fight as a guerrillero or maquis or partisan or insurgent, call what you want, it´s the same, and I´ll put bombs, no doubt of that, but I´ll attack the enemy soldiers, not civilians going to work.
2. If I´m going to fight abroad, I count with the negative feelings of native people, I´m at "their home" without being invited. I´ll spect being attacked without any previous warning, and I won´t call terrorists the ones that do that, even if I´m angry, because they fight the same as I do, and they need being brave for fighting in the way they do.
3. Under any circumstance I´ll torture or kill prisioners, specially if they still are guilty of nothing. If what I want to gather is information the best I can do is talking and making friends. And everyday I´m being attacked with bombs I must repeat this to myself 100 times if it´s necessary.
4.And l won´t torture or kill prisioners, specially if they still are guilty of nothing because the cause I defend is good, and because it´s against my deepest moral concernings. That´s an absolute valour.

About ETA, in Basque Country there was an endless discussion about morals here, and I´m sorry to say that many people behad in a shameful way, in the sense of turning their eyes to other place and don´t helping the victims. ETA was seen with indulgence here by many people when Franco still was alive. But in democracy, ETA killed more innocents that never and terrified at least the half of society. One of the worst things that the socialist government of the 80s did in Spain was trying to fight ETA with the same weapons: dirty war, tortures and spreading the terror. The result is that some innocents died, few terrorists were killed and many peaceful nationalists people that didn´t support terrorism this time supported in some way or another ETA, the gap that divided basque society in the 80s still isn´t shut, but slowly this time we are defeating ETA because we´re better than them.
Tortures it´s a shame, and democracies can´t use that ****.

[mack pl]

OK guys...........a few PM's have come in..........topic stays,and remains open.
dziekuje all for participating......... ;)Dziękuje bardzo ,kupie ci sukienkę w szkocką krate ;) ...yeah,im ignorant....@Loco thanks a lot for your post.BTW history is very difficult.Before 1918 poland didnt exists.we fight against Russia for example.I dont think only about uprisings(1830,1864),but about terrorism.we have something like -PPS Frakcja Bojowa.They killing russian officers-shooting ,bombs etc...so, they were terrorists.but after 1918 when Poland was create again, they were ours nationals heroes.My english isnt good enough ,so i cannot say more about it.Well, sometime you are terrorist for some people, but another time you are hero.Ohhh, well its difficult topic.....Regards :)

[Ichhabe]

This was supposed to be a "Polish only"-thread. But I feel that I must reply on one thing, just to make a thing or two clear.

Tane Angle said:


Seems like some people, through no fault of their own, are under the impression that these are new tactics. They're not really though.

There haven't been much focus on IED's in the western media, because we haven't been "treated" with such weaponry. (Of course we have, but it has not been given media attention) Maybe this is why some here at the forum think that this is all new.


The tactics are nearly a century old. Hate to say it, but maybe this is how everyone but the American(and Western overall) public understands war to be.

When I did my concription service back in the mid 80's we were learned to use such tactics. We trained on it, and I can assure you all: I would not hesitate using my knowledge in case of an invasion of my country. I would have IED'd their asses off when given a chance.

Setting up an IED and a squad or a platoon in an ambush point is,...hey! Called an ambush. Has been used for years by western armies aswell. There is nothing new here. Just that the other side is using it against us.

[mack pl]

This was supposed to be a "Polish only"-thread. But I feel that I must reply on one thing, just to make a thing or two clear.
It wasnt only for polish, Mamrot only wants to know mostly polish opinions ;) Regards (btw good post ) ... :)

[Lysander]

OK guys...........a few PM's have come in..........topic stays,and remains open.
dziekuje all for participating......... ;)Dziękuje bardzo ,kupie ci sukienkę w szkocką krate ;) ...yeah,im ignorant....@Loco thanks a lot for your post.BTW history is very difficult.Before 1918 poland didnt exists.we fight against Russia for example.I dont think only about uprisings(1830,1864),but about terrorism.we have something like -PPS Frakcja Bojowa.They killing russian officers-shooting ,bombs etc...so, they were terrorists.but after 1918 when Poland was create again, they were ours nationals heroes.My english isnt good enough ,so i cannot say more about it.Well, sometime you are terrorist for some people, but another time you are hero.Ohhh, well its difficult topic.....Regards :)

Someone mentioned this earlier..."The name simply depends on the party you ask."

Q1. If there is an occuping force in a country, then they are a legitamit target. (this is my opinion) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Pretty interesting thread.

[mack pl]

OK guys...........a few PM's have come in..........topic stays,and remains open.
dziekuje all for participating......... ;)Dziękuje bardzo ,kupie ci sukienkę w szkocką krate ;) ...yeah,im ignorant....@Loco thanks a lot for your post.BTW history is very difficult.Before 1918 poland didnt exists.we fight against Russia for example.I dont think only about uprisings(1830,1864),but about terrorism.we have something like -PPS Frakcja Bojowa.They killing russian officers-shooting ,bombs etc...so, they were terrorists.but after 1918 when Poland was create again, they were ours nationals heroes.My english isnt good enough ,so i cannot say more about it.Well, sometime you are terrorist for some people, but another time you are hero.Ohhh, well its difficult topic.....Regards :)

Someone mentioned this earlier..."The name simply depends on the party you ask."

Q1. If there is an occuping force in a country, then they are a legitamit target. (this is my opinion) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Pretty interesting thread.Ohh,well, like I said before-its difficult topic :|

[perdurabo]

Seems like some people, through no fault of their own, are under the impression that these are new tactics. They're not really though. It's all been done before. The VC in Saigon, most of the groups in Beirut, in various African countries, in Bogota and other cities in Colombia, in other Middle Eastern countries, in Asia proper, throughout Europe, especially by ETA and groups involved with Northern Ireland. Even 1920s Chicago had tactics like the ones in Iraq, some perhaps even worse.

The tactics are nearly a century old. Hate to say it, but maybe this is how everyone but the American(and Western overall) public understands war to be. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
this tactics is as old as human civilization only wepon changed it a litle bit, look at celts aginst romans they attacked in small groups smal convoys, in poland we had numerous battles with "wojna podjazdowa" or "wojna szarpana" quick attacks on troops in march and quick reatreat fight like ghost... only invention of black powder upgreaded this to putting bombs and mines thats all. If you look at "new strategy" of quick attacks deep inside enemy teritory like USA mad in Iraq and look at tactics of Mongol tribes or Republic of Two Nations (Pols and Lithuanians) you will se lots of similarty only wepons changed, tactics is the same.

[Herrmannek]

Mustard after dinner.... Damn I haven't time to look here yesterday :( ..
Just to take voice
1: Its hard to say we are legitimate target
Pro: we are occupying forces
but
Con: Iraqi gov. still not democraticaly chosen, but I think more or less recognised by Iraqis, supports our presence there, so so called insurgents acting against it should be considered criminals. From that point of view as criminals they don't have any right attack anyone there. But as every criminal in civilised world when captured they should be treated with respect to human rights at least until legaly convicted :) ...

[PAK]

OK I would like to ask you, and especially polish guys here what do you think:

Q1: Are Polish Soldiers in Iraq a legitime target for insurgents?.(Remember: Soldiers - not Civilians not Media people. -and as Insurgents I mean People who obey laws of war, not terrorists).

I will add my two cents (grosze ;-))Better late than never.
I don't think that polish soldiers are legitimate target for any opposing force in Iraq, as I deny any legitimacy for iraqi insurgents. As far as I know, insurgents are not representing ANY legitimate government, political force, whether considering sunnis or shias. Sunni insurgent groups (AFAIK - I don't consider myself as all-knowing) are mainly made up of former saddam secret police members, now turned religious zealots, or former fedayeen militia members. The centre of sunni insurgency, Anbar province ("sunni triangle") was always a source for all branches of saddam terror apparatus and financial elite of regime (a rank lower than clans form Tikrit). These are people who resemble quite well some former members of communist apparatus in Poland and neighbouring countries, suddenly (after the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe) turned hardline nationalists - they don't have the right to represent anyone, or to fight on behalf of anyone. In Iraq they represent only the portion of former regime apparatus with its lost position and power.
As for the Shias and especially Sadr - things are more complicated because of history of shias in Iraq, but still sadrists are group made of terribly poor people, frustrated, very easily manipulated. Sadr is self-styled ayatullah (afaik he didn't finish appropriate religious schools, so he is NOT an ayatullah or even a scholar), he owes his position to his name and family history (father and other relatives) - all he proposes is usuall stuff for religious radicals - fight the infidel! He represents taleban-like style, with religious fervor camouflaging lack of any social or economical agenda. Parts of shia society, practicaly second classed in Saddam's Iraq are easily bought with calls for "islamic state", "fight against infidel". But that's pure populism in islamic frames. Sadr can incite revolt, but he would be unable to construct a reliable government or to participate in democratic process.
Therefore I deny both sides a legitimacy in their fight against the coalition. You will ask, what abouy "natural right for resistance"? If you grant that right for everyone we will end up in chaos - a future target for someone's "right for resistance" would became UN forces somewhere in the world. Why? Because somewhere there will appear another Sadr, or some former secret police member and they all will suddenly became champions of "national cause". And all their legitimacy will be their own words.
I will not even mention so called "foreign fighters", linked to one or another terrorist groups, because they are out of question.


Q2:DO you think that IED is "legal" mean of war?

Well, I say YES. I won't venture here into matters of anti-land mine convention, but in some cases, IED's could be used by regular forces (or for example, special units, operating behind the enemy lines).


Q3:Do you think that there should be any form of contact/negotiation with insurgents to solve conflict on political ground (again with insurgents not terrorists)

Yes. In Iraq case, after all, the resolution should be political, not military. In partially it is. Fallujah resolution is political, reached in negotiations. While Americans still fights sadrists from Mehdi's army, the negotiations with Sadr (with other shias factions as intermediaries) are still conducted (broken but still started all over again).
About polish forces in Iraq - they're there for stabilisation purposes, helping the reconstruction of country (infrastructre, police, judiciary system...) not for persecuting political factions or different society groups. Some will say - but Poles are fighting sadrists now. Yes, only because sadrists stared the revolt. Even now, polish soldiers are not taking part in offensive actions of Americans. For example, in last few weeks of Sadr revolt, Poles and Bulgarians soldiers were only defending theirs positions in Karbala (well, Najaf, Kut and Kufa fell into sadrists control quite quickly, but in Karbala central buldings, like police stations, mayor office where successfully defended by polish and bulgarian soldiers, and, afaik, fights there were intense, very intense).
And finally to be clear - I don't think that attacks on americans or british soldiers are legitimate. Imho comparisions with 2nd world war european anti-nazi resistance are huge misconception.

[volfram]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

[Herrmannek]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?

[volfram]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?
Is that was war?

[Denat]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?
:roll:
That's what I wanted to say.
As I said before:

Marmot, you have given here the deffinition of insurgents which is favorising almost everyone carrying weapons openly. That means even robbers and assasins could be recognized as freedom-fighters. In accordance to your deffinition those savages who killed 4 american contractors and than humiliated their bodies and celebrated the event with uncoordinated dance were insurgents and as such should be granted rights as combatants.

[Herrmannek]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?
Is that was war?

State of war doesn't matter, civil or not doesn't matter,... only thing that matter is folowing rules. Guys in magdalenka didn't broke any convention... do you call them insurgants or criminals?

[Nizark]

All soldiers would be legit targets

IED's are acceptible because that is one of the only things they got. Its like asking if using GPS bombs are legal just because the other side doesn't have/use them

negotiation should be ok, because they are defending territory and not killing for the sake of killing

[volfram]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?
:roll:
That's what I wanted to say.
As I said before:

Marmot, you have given here the deffinition of insurgents which is favorising almost everyone carrying weapons openly. That means even robbers and assasins could be recognized as freedom-fighters. In accordance to your deffinition those savages who killed 4 american contractors and than humiliated their bodies and celebrated the event with uncoordinated dance were insurgents and as such should be granted rights as combatants.
We are not talking about fredomfighters but about those who are combatants>Kiling civilians is violation of rules of war so those who did this are not combatants but criminals.

[volfram]

Rules are simple.Sides of conflict have combatants rights if obey rules of war,no materr if they represent democratic goverment or not,majority or minority,if they ideology is good or bad,if war is declared or not civil or not.It is enought they are sides of conflict.
Sadrs army for example, is side of conflict,other question is do they obey rules of war.

So guys in magdaleka were insurgents?
Is that was war?

State of war doesn't matter, civil or not doesn't matter,... only thing that matter is folowing rules. Guys in magdalenka didn't broke any convention... do you call them insurgants or criminals?
That was not the war so they broken the law.

[Herrmannek]

Volfram from your definition war isn't needed only oposing sides. Anyone with gun on open who doesn't target civilians without any weapon can be cosidered legal party :) , and by your definition civils also can be legal parties, wich is literaly against convention. fighting civils arent considered legal and coventions doesn't protect such people. Targets targeted by them also couldn't be considered legal because they aren't legal. Example is with hunter and poacher, hunter can shot pig because he belong to legal party, but poacher can't because he doesn't...

[volfram]

Volfram from your definition war isn't needed only oposing sides. Anyone with gun on open who doesn't target civilians without any weapon can be cosidered legal party :) , and by your definition civils also can be legal parties, wich is literaly against convention. fighting civils arent considered legal and coventions doesn't protect such people. Targets targeted by them also couldn't be considered legal because they aren't legal. Example is with hunter and poacher, hunter can shot pig because he belong to legal party, but poacher can't because he doesn't...
First of all this is not my definition but genova convention.
When i said conflict i meant war ,armed conflict,but war doesnt need to be declared.
Where i said civilians can be legal parties?

[volfram]

I mean civil war.

[Herrmannek]

I mean civil war.

OK now I got you :), But still legitimate targets are only for legitimate parties, insurgents in Iraq doesn't seem legal party because the don't differenate themselves from civils or other parties, they use churches, hospitals or even willingly use civilians as cover... If they will be cought all acts even those made on "legal targets" could be considered non-legal because of the reasons mentioned above

[Herrmannek]

BTW I'm not stating I'm right anyone who wants prove me wrong is invited :)

[volfram]

I mean civil war.

OK now I got you :), But still legitimate targets are only for legitimate parties, insurgents in Iraq doesn't seem legal party because the don't differenate themselves from civils or other parties, they use churches, hospitals or even willingly use civilians as cover... If they will be cought all acts even those made on "legal targets" could be considered non-legal because of the reasons mentioned above
O.K.I am repeating again>if they follow rules of war they are legal parties if not they should face trial for violating rules of war.

[Marmot1]

OK, I was absent today since I had some serious job to do but...

Here are my answers: (Yeah I asked you to answer but I dodn't so far.)

Q1:Yes I think that they are legitime target for insurgent but only if second side (insurgents) oney laws of war.
Q2: Yes I think that IED is legal mean of war since IED is usualy detonated remotelly and for me is more humanitarian way of fighting than mine (since most of victims of mines die after conflict ends and IED is usualy intended to hit military target when it pases nearby)
Q3: As for negotiations... Well it depends... I think that there should be negotiations with people like Al-Sistini but not with Al-Sadr. Why? Becouse Al Sadr used "dirty" methods to archive his goals like killing kidnaping etc. Another problem is with his Al-Machdi army... AFAIK most of them wear openly arms and even have some sort of ID...

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/50823677.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=B84D4F1548A4F56EFDED80A21A864454A9C30E9B9B114CE8

...like this guy on left. For me they should be treated as combatants as long as they obey laws of war, it not then...


To make it more clear
1.I did not supported Invasion in iraq - why? since in my opinion fighting with whole nation to get one man (Husain) is pointless US should "decapitate" his regime by kiling selected officials and then send troops to provide help... but this is my opinion.
2. Altrough I did not supported full scale war I support FULLY all US efforts to bring stabulization and peace in IRAQ and I think that US forces as well as others are necesary to provide peace in Iraq.
3. I fully suport Polish troops in iraq since I think that they are doing great job to help iraqis.
4. I do not want to pull out our guys from iraq, I think that they should stay there as long as they are helpfull.
5. I understand that some iraqis are angry on enemy troops stationing in their country and I understand that as long as they are not using terrorist methods like beheading of POWs.
6. Al-Zarkawi... give me that ****er and I can personaly take his skin from him,and I hope he would be alive till I end...
7. I do not have respect to ppl who kill or abuse defenseless POWs,childrens,and any other unarmed civilians. But I also understand that sometimes **** happens and some civilians die even it you tried to avoid this.
8.And specially for our russian friends: I am not gomosek and I would never be since I prefer,and tolerate only females in my bed. ;)

[Argyll]

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/50823677.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=B84D4F1548A4F56EFDED80A21A864454A9C30E9B9B114CE8


What's the difference between these 2 being ?
1.Off duty Police
2.Foreign Insurgents
3.Terrorists
4.Local Security guards at some infrastructure
5.Local Thugs

[Herrmannek]

Argyll I agree they are not distinctive enough... insurgents(at least when on duty) should wear distinctive patches/bands and something at least slightly(for economical reasons) reminiscent uniform... Just my thoughts

[mack pl]

Argyll I agree they are not distinctive enough... insurgents(at least when on duty) should wear distinctive patches/bands and something at least slightly(for economical reasons) reminiscent uniform... Just my thoughtsOk people,i wanna say something about recognizing insurgents and terrorists..well, in my opinion they fuzkers dont care,how we did called them-terrorists or insurgents....They will not wearing white T-shirts with fuzkin inscription "Im terrorist" or "Im insurgent"....my 2 eurocents...... :|

[Denat]

Argyll I agree they are not distinctive enough... insurgents(at least when on duty) should wear distinctive patches/bands and something at least slightly(for economical reasons) reminiscent uniform... Just my thoughtsOk people,i wanna say something about recognizing insurgents and terrorists..well, in my opinion they fuzkers dont care,how we did called them-terrorists or insurgents....They will not wearing white T-shirts with fuzkin inscription "Im terrorist" or "Im insurgent"....my 2 eurocents...... :|

Well said - they probably even don't know what's the real difference between insurgent, terrorist and robber, and what is more they don't care.
Mostly they are 3 in 1 ;)

[mack pl]

Argyll I agree they are not distinctive enough... insurgents(at least when on duty) should wear distinctive patches/bands and something at least slightly(for economical reasons) reminiscent uniform... Just my thoughtsOk people,i wanna say something about recognizing insurgents and terrorists..well, in my opinion they fuzkers dont care,how we did called them-terrorists or insurgents....They will not wearing white T-shirts with fuzkin inscription "Im terrorist" or "Im insurgent"....my 2 eurocents...... :|

Well said - they probably even don't know what's the real difference between insurgent, terrorist and robber, and what is more they don't care.
Mostly they are 3 in 1 ;)Well, its topic for lawyers,"are they insurgents or terrorits?".But for soldiers its not important,if someone shoot to them,they must shoot too :| Simple :| Pozdro all :)

[Herrmannek]

And thats the point, if they don't care about rules our presence there is more valid and needed...

[Argyll]

And thats the point, if they don't care about rules our presence there is more valid and needed...



BINGO!!! ;)

[mack pl]

And thats the point, if they don't care about rules our presence there is more valid and needed...



BINGO!!! ;)Hermannek won new bicycle, pink colour ;) :lol:

[Argyll]

With or without a crossbar? ;)

[mack pl]

With or without a crossbar? ;)I dont know :roll: I know only that, it will be PINK :) :lol:

[Herrmannek]

With or without a crossbar? ;)I dont know :roll: I know only that, it will be PINK :) :lol:

Have one already almost pink(chery to be exact ) with crossbar :)

[mack pl]

With or without a crossbar? ;)I dont know :roll: I know only that, it will be PINK :) :lol:

Have one already almost pink(Jerry to be exact ) with crossbar :)So,now you will get second,100% Pink ;) You are the man :lol: .......PS.I still think you are p...y from artillery :lol:

[Marmot1]

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/50823677.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=B84D4F1548A4F56EFDED80A21A864454A9C30E9B9B114CE8


What's the difference between these 2 being ?
1.Off duty Police
2.Foreign Insurgents
3.Terrorists
4.Local Security guards at some infrastructure
5.Local Thugs

Well I noticed on several pics that some of them wear those funny ID with Al-Sadr photo. So at least some of them try to obey some laws.

As for me: if they shoot, I shoot back simple. No regret. No remorse.
But the question is how should they be treated when they are captured. If that are "real" insurgents who obey laws of war then they shouldn't be punished i.e. prosecuted for fighting and should have full POWs rights, and released after end of conflict. However if they are captured and it is proven that they are terrorist or guilty of i.e kidnaping or mistreating of POWs then they should be treated as ordinary thugs, prosecuted and jailed or executed if it is OK with law. (AFAIK capital punishment is suspended by CPA in Iraq for now so execution do not come into play :-( )

So as for me diference occur only after they are captured, before that I would shoot at them first then ask. If they are police off duty they shouldn't wear guns on stret since it is illegal. If they are insurgents then they are legitime target. If they are terrorists then again they are legitime target, If they are local security at some structure they should have some ID to distingush them and should stick to this structure when carry weapons, if not - they bad. If local thugs then again legitime target.

[Argyll]

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/50823677.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=B84D4F1548A4F56EFDED80A21A864454A9C30E9B9B114CE8


What's the difference between these 2 being ?
1.Off duty Police
2.Foreign Insurgents
3.Terrorists
4.Local Security guards at some infrastructure
5.Local Thugs

Well I noticed on several pics that some of them wear those funny ID with Al-Sadr photo. So at least some of them try to obey some laws.

As for me: if they shoot, I shoot back simple. No regret. No remorse.
But the question is how should they be treated when they are captured. If that are "real" insurgents who obey laws of war then they shouldn't be punished i.e. prosecuted for fighting and should have full POWs rights, and released after end of conflict. However if they are captured and it is proven that they are terrorist or guilty of i.e kidnaping or mistreating of POWs then they should be treated as ordinary thugs, prosecuted and jailed or executed if it is OK with law. (AFAIK capital punishment is suspended by CPA in Iraq for now so execution do not come into play :-( )

So as for me diference occur only after they are captured, before that I would shoot at them first then ask. If they are police off duty they shouldn't wear guns on stret since it is illegal. If they are insurgents then they are legitime target. If they are terrorists then again they are legitime target, If they are local security at some structure they should have some ID to distingush them and should stick to this structure when carry weapons, if not - they bad. If local thugs then again legitime target.

Here's something for you to perouse Marmot ;) It has come "interesting" definitions to say the least

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

I've no idea as to the credibility of this site or it's definitions but I do like this one tho ;)


A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed.

[mack pl]

As for me: if they shoot, I shoot back simple. No regret. No remorse.
But the question is how should they be treated when they are captured. If that are "real" insurgents who obey laws of war then they shouldn't be punished i.e. prosecuted for fighting and should have full POWs rights, and released after end of conflict. However if they are captured and it is proven that they are terrorist or guilty of i.e kidnaping or mistreating of POWs then they should be treated as ordinary thugs, prosecuted and jailed or executed if it is OK with law. (AFAIK capital punishment is suspended by CPA in Iraq for now so execution do not come into play :-( )
Ok,but how do you proof them that they are "terrorists", and other hand,how they could proof us(coalition force) that they are "Real insurgents"??????In my opinion its almost impossible :| ....well, we should treated them all, like humans,after captured......Regards....

[Marmot1]

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/50823677.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=B84D4F1548A4F56EFDED80A21A864454A9C30E9B9B114CE8


What's the difference between these 2 being ?
1.Off duty Police
2.Foreign Insurgents
3.Terrorists
4.Local Security guards at some infrastructure
5.Local Thugs

Well I noticed on several pics that some of them wear those funny ID with Al-Sadr photo. So at least some of them try to obey some laws.

As for me: if they shoot, I shoot back simple. No regret. No remorse.
But the question is how should they be treated when they are captured. If that are "real" insurgents who obey laws of war then they shouldn't be punished i.e. prosecuted for fighting and should have full POWs rights, and released after end of conflict. However if they are captured and it is proven that they are terrorist or guilty of i.e kidnaping or mistreating of POWs then they should be treated as ordinary thugs, prosecuted and jailed or executed if it is OK with law. (AFAIK capital punishment is suspended by CPA in Iraq for now so execution do not come into play :-( )

So as for me diference occur only after they are captured, before that I would shoot at them first then ask. If they are police off duty they shouldn't wear guns on stret since it is illegal. If they are insurgents then they are legitime target. If they are terrorists then again they are legitime target, If they are local security at some structure they should have some ID to distingush them and should stick to this structure when carry weapons, if not - they bad. If local thugs then again legitime target.

Here's something for you to perouse Marmot ;) It has come "interesting" definitions to say the least

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

I've no idea as to the credibility of this site or it's definitions but I do like this one tho ;)


A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed.



Combatant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:


1.In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.
2.Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.
3.Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.
4.Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.
A combatant who has surrendered becomes a prisoner of war.

Well we agree in most points but I see that problem is with definition of unifrom...



OK here are "my" definitions..

civil patrols

Members of civil defense organizations may bear light individual weapons in order to maintain order or for self-defense. (Protocol I, Art. 65, Sec. 3)

Civil defense personnel must be clearly identified with distinctive symbols and identity cards. (Protocol I, Art. 66)

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.
In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)


guerrillas

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Argyll]

It's a good read is it not,it certainly has a lot of differing interpretations compared to others.............and there lies the problems,these interpretations are being used by Civilains who question the actions of Coaliton forces,whereas if you use one sources definitions such as Wikepedia,the terms are somewhat "open".
Some other Orginisation such as Amnesty will not use the same interpretations,and use a different set.

But the interpretation and quote I used from that site about torture being allowed I find amazing to say the least.

I might just open up another topic for this one alone?

[Herrmannek]

Thats why I think convention should be rewriten, with more presure puted ad definitions

[Marmot1]

It's a good read is it not,it certainly has a lot of differing interpretations compared to others.............and there lies the problems,these interpretations are being used by Civilains who question the actions of Coaliton forces,whereas if you use one sources definitions such as Wikepedia,the terms are somewhat "open".
Some other Orginisation such as Amnesty will not use the same interpretations,and use a different set.

But the interpretation and quote I used from that site about torture being allowed I find amazing to say the least.

I might just open up another topic for this one alone?

Well wikipedia is open encyklopedia created by ordinary users and revieved by them.

I provided you quotes from conventions... hope it was interesting to you.

As for tortures... they are allowed as long as they were alowed before occupation , the same with capital punishment. And BTW most countries signed convention against tortures and tortures are illegal in most of the word (except china and some middle east countries)